Monitoring bioeconomy transitions and their effects can be considered a Herculean task, as they cannot be easily captured using current economic statistics. Distinctions are rarely made between bio-based and non-bio-based products when official data is collected. However, production along bioeconomy supply chains and its implications for sustainability require measurement and assessment to enable considered policymaking. We propose a starting point for monitoring bioeconomy transitions by suggesting an adapted framework, relevant sectors, and indicators that can be observed with existing information and data from many alternative sources, assuming that official data collection methods will not be modified soon. Economic–environmental indicators and innovation indicators are derived for the German surfactant industry based on the premise that combined economic–environmental indicators can show actual developments and trade-offs, while innovation indicators can reveal whether a bioeconomy transition is likely in a sector. Methodological challenges are discussed and low-cost; high-benefit options for further data collection are recommended.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Industrial Biotechnology (IB) is considered as a key technology with a strong potential to generate new growth, spur innovation, increase productivity, and tackle environmental and climate challenges. Industrial Biotechnology is applied in many segments of the bioeconomy ranging from chemicals, biofuels, bioenergy, bio-based plastics, and other biomaterials. However, the segments differ profoundly regarding volume, price, type, and amount of needed feedstock, market condition, societal contributions as well as maturity, etc. This article aims to analyse a set of five different value chains in the technological innovation system (TIS) framework in order to derive adequate policy conclusions. Hereby, we focus on quite distinctive value chains to take into account the high heterogeneity of biotechnological applications. The analysis points out that policy maker have to take into account the fundamental differences in the innovation systems and to implement differentiated innovation policy to address system weaknesses. In particular, market formation is often the key bottleneck innovation systems, but different policy instruments for various application segments needed.